Re: [xtm-wg] A challenge on "the graph"

[Robert Barta <rho@bigpond.net.au>]

"W. Eliot Kimber" wrote:
> 
> Sam Hunting wrote:
> > Of course, as I see it UML is a modelling langauge for *software
> > systems*. No wonder it is most useful for that. But we are not building
> > such a system, so to the extent UML is optimized for its market
> > realities, it may not be suitable for us.
> 
> But the processing model *defines a software system*.

Now I'm completely confused:

  - First we define a syntax (XTM) with some more-or-less fuzzy meaning.

  - Then we define the "processing system" as UML instance.

  - And then we try to define a query language against an
*implementation
    description in UML?

This seems like putting a cart before the horse.

If common processing semantics is _the only_ goal, then we are probably
better off with providing a 'reference implementation' and stop the
discussion about (semi-)formal models.

If, OTOH, Topic Maps want to have a chance against RDF, then some
formal model MUST be defined.

\rho

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Do you have 128-bit SSL encryption server security?
Get VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your
Web Site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2cW4jC/c.WCAA/bT0EAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/